Police will be able to fingerprint drivers at the side of the road
snipurl.com/130n4
This should be a good thing if it is used to id rogue drivers and those who are banned
|
Maybe! On day one of this system what prints are going to be in the datbase concerning rogue and banned drivers? Nobody, yet, has to give a fingerprint when banned, given points or applying for insurance. They stop some scrote and take his finger print - what are they comparing it with?
|
|
Next will be a DNA sample, then once everyone is in the database automatic money generation will take over. Each sweet paper, fag-end on the street etc will generate a FP fine.
|
They plugged this on the Today R4 show saying -
"Drivers will not be forced to give their fingerprints but if they don't they can be arrested"
- when you are arrested they can fingerprint you - is that not force?
- does that make refusal to give a fingerprint an offence?
Maybe it's the R4 reporter who needs correcting - because that sounded just not right
|
|
Also - is the device they use capable of storing prints of people never fingerprinted before?
|
"Also - is the device they use capable of storing prints of people never fingerprinted before?"
The question was asked on R4 and the answer is Yes. So, if you're stopped, you'll have the choice. Be fingerprinted, or be arrested and fingerprinted. Another civil liberty bites the dust.
V
|
|
|
|
Arrested for the offence they are alleged to have comitted and for which they were stopped or arrested for refusing to give a print? I think we should be told. Maybe it is the police that need correcting!
|
I would imagine a new legislation will be passed allowing arrest for failing to provide a fingerprint, mush the same as the one allowing arrest for failing to provide a breath sample at the rodside.
It will be interesting to know for sure.
|
Not as draconian as one would think
When the police are dealing with a person suspected of an offence, but prior to any arrest, questions may arise as to the person's identity. The police will try to verify the person's identity but if this is not possible the suspect will normally be arrested provided. But there a number of conditions that apply before the arrest can place one being the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name..
The police have developed mobile digital fingerprint readers that can be connected to the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) by mobile communications technology. This will provide the police with the capability to take fingerprints away from the police station. Fingerprint impressions of two fingers are taken and checked against NAFIS where records of all wrongdoers that have been fingerprinted are kept in a matter of minutes. Where the check against NAFIS results in a match the officer will then be in a more informed position to decide on the appropriate course of action.
The fingerprints would also be subject to a speculative search against the database of fingerprints recovered from crime scenes.
There is a power for the police to take a person's fingerprints prior to an arrest and away from a police station in circumstances where:-
the constable reasonably suspects that the person is committing, or attempting to commit an offence, or has committed or attempted to commit an offence; and
either the name of the person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable or the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether the name given by the person is his real name.
so as to allow fingerprints taken as above to be checked against the NAFIS database of fingerprints and speculatively searched against the database of fingerprints recovered from crime scenes.
The Act makes it clear that fingerprints taken prior to arrest will not be retained nor added to NAFIS.
A constable may take a person's fingerprints without the appropriate consent if-
(a) the constable reasonably suspects that the person is committing or attempting to commit an offence, or has committed or attempted to commit an offence; and
(b) either of the two conditions mentioned below is met.
The conditions are that-
(a) the name of the person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable;
(b) the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the person as his name is his real name.
There is as far as I am aware no specific power to willy nilly demand fingerprint check unless some of the conditions above apply and if they do not then the check can be refused.
(Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as amended by/and Serious Organised Crime and Police Act
2005.)
dvd
|
The usual comprehenive and informed reply from DVD. I have to ask though, if
"The Act makes it clear that fingerprints taken prior to arrest will not be retained nor added to NAFIS. "
How come thousands of DNA swabs, particularly of people who have comitted no crime, or who are found not guity in court proceedings ,ARE retained?
|
|
|
"The Act makes it clear that fingerprints taken prior to arrest will not be retained nor added to NAFIS."
They said this about DNA taken when people were charged with offences, that it would be destroyed if the charge was dropped or they were found not guilty.
I believe now, a person in that situation has to convince the Chief Constable that there is no reason for keeping that DNA and that despite people trying to get DNA off the databank this permission is very rarely given.
I recall this from a recent Today R4 programme and a Chief Constable admitted this, even that they had the DNA of an 8 month old for no good reason and would 'look into' having it removed
Nice in theory... but how will it really be with fingerprints
|
|
|
"The Act makes it clear that fingerprints taken prior to arrest will not be retained nor added to NAFIS."
The spokesman this morning was VERY clear on this point. The intention if the pilot works is that fingerprints taken in this way will be placed on NAFIS.
V
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe! On day one of this system what prints are going to be in the datbase concerning rogue and banned drivers? Nobody, yet, has to give a fingerprint when banned, given points or applying for insurance. They stop some scrote and take his finger print - what are they comparing it with?
All drivers who are charged with an offence such as drink/disqualified driving are fingerprinted.
|
|
Our local news has just had a report about this. Police in the south have been using the technology today and one of the first drivers stopped and scanned was wanted for a number of offences in Yorkshire. That's the main reason for bringing it in - too many 'Mr J Bloggs' driving round and police are wasting time and effort trying to identify who someone is. How many times have you seen the Traffic Cop style programmes where the person stopped spends ages messing the police around trying to avoid giving their true identity?
|
I'm waiting for the rolling out of the argument that you have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong. The spokesman on R4 tried it this morning.
I'm 43. I strongly suspect that by the time I'm 83, a government will have proposed implanting location chips in the populace on the grounds that "you have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong".
V
|
My signature apart, I think it's a reasonable response to an escalating problem. Plus this will detect all the other offences that Officers miss due to the lack of capability in this area. I for one applaud it, it seems to have proper safeguards. Let's do it, challenge it and see what happens.
and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt. Tacitus, Annals
|
and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt. Tacitus, Annals
Fabulous quote PU. Nothing new under the sun.
|
|
|
|
|
